Talk:USS Enterprise-A personnel
I rather prefer the simpler list format used on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel and various other similar pages, it makes seeing how personnel fall into each division and job a bit easier. --8of5 00:01, July 2, 2010 (UTC) :I recognize that would be useful to have for those reasons. :However, I obviously was and am interested in having an insignia table. Is there anyway we could maintain both lists? -- Captain MKB 00:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC) Well I don't think it would be sensible to keep two lists of the same information, these lists get out of date enough without needing to update two every time an update is made. It might be possible to reconfigure the table to something closer to the list arrangement? But I think the straight list is actually a much easier way to look up on this particular type of list because of the way you can use the stepped bullet points to indent lists within lists: You know how you an have one CMO, one head nurse, then just have nurse as a point with all the standard nurses listed below one step in. It's very easy to read that format.. I know you love your insignias, but what do they actually add to this particular type of page? They don't help you identify which character is being referred to, the division and rank is given in text (well not the division currently, but in the usual list format it is), and unless a reader knows what all the little pictures mean it's all a bit abstract. --8of5 01:03, July 2, 2010 (UTC) :First, they aren't my insignia. I believe another, currently inactive, admin-bureaucrat really spearheaded the process for getting insignia added using a third party site with a shared-reuse copyright. I've supported this initiative as it is informative to people who are fans of Trek uniforms. :That's what they add to this type of page -- a better understanding of uniform styles and insignia as they pertain to crewmembers in a hierarchy. :Second, yes, I agree this isn't as extremely informative about the people themselves, that's what their articles are for. However, a list of names sorted by department also doesn't necessarily help you identify what character is being referred to, so your preferred style has exactly the same problem as the one you are arguing against. -- Captain MKB 01:26, July 2, 2010 (UTC) ::We might be able to compromise between the two ideas by adding a "department" category to the sortable table. You could then toggle between an alphabetical list, a department-based list, a list sorted by rank, and a list ordered by specific position. ::I like the insignia, for what it's worth. They make the page more colorful, and the rank easier to read at-a-glance.--Columbia clipper 02:06, July 2, 2010 (UTC) :::Gotta say I like the straight list a lot better. To me the insignia don't add much to the point of this list which is to easily identify personnel that served aboard the Enterprise-A and educating people about rank insignia is for the (quite nice) rank pages. In short: I prefer the straight list.--Long Live the United Earth 21:43, July 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well, I'd say we should focus on the possibility of making some illustrative rank lists that are separate from the straight lists so that we can be as informative as possible and satisfy all of the valid viewpoints in this discussion. Just because 8of5 and UESPAules don't care for the illustrations, Captainmike and Columbia clipper are enthusiastic about exploring this expanded use for the illustrations and believe it is totally valid. -- Captain MKB 22:38, July 2, 2010 (UTC) :::I never would have guessed that Columbia Clipper and Captainmike liked the use of illustrations from their posts, thanks for clarifying that. I was simply stating my view that the straight list used on other pages was more in line with the purpose of the article. And as 8 said, I really don't think that creating a duplicate list just to include the rank illustrations isn't particularly productive. I mean, you'd basically be creating two lists of almost the same thing. :/--Long Live the United Earth 22:50, July 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::Would it be possible to compromise between the two ideas by adding a "department" category to the sortable table current used here? Readers could organize the information in four ways, to their liking: by name, by department, by rank, and by specific position. Every one of those categories would be readily available, instead of just department and, to an extent, position, as in the straight list system. (Sorry to bring this up again, but no one commented on it when I first raised the possibility.) --Columbia clipper 00:49, July 3, 2010 (UTC) :I'd say it was fine to do so and would vote in favor of that in a continuing discussion also. -- Captain MKB 00:57, July 3, 2010 (UTC) That's a possible compromise. However my qualm is not so much whether the department is represented or not, but that the table format makes it much more difficult to read the detail of how personnel are separated out. For instance the sub-listing using the stepped bullets I previously mentioned, or the fact you can list a character twice when they have at different times occupied different roles onboard the ship. The table format, sortable or not, makes everything look like one big list, while the simpler bulleted list format can add a lot of meaning and detail simply by the way the information is arranged. Mike you misread my use of the word your, I was not trying to imply they were some personal possession of yours, merely that I recognise they are one of your areas of interest, and that your general interest and enthusiasm for them might therefore be biasing your opinion as to the appropriateness and usefulness of applying them to this particular sort of page. As you said, the character pages are for exploring this sort of minutia in detail, and as UESPA said, we already have very well developed pages for exploring ranks and insignia collectively. I'm a big fan of illustrations, but this page is about people not uniforms, if it needs to be illustrated better than how about we find a bunch of really nice shots showing off the crew: the main bridge crew, a bunch of engineers at work, a bunch of medical stuff doing their thing, etc. Use images to illustrate what this page is about, the personnel of the USS Enterprise-A. Two lists of the same thing is not a good idea either, as I noted nearer the start that inevitably means both lists are poorly maintained so both lists loose value by being less comprehensive. Not to mention how confusing it would be for the casual readers. And also considering this page is in effect already one of two lists of the Enterprise-A personnel, the other being the category for the same subject--8of5 01:00, July 3, 2010 (UTC) :8of5, it's a slippery slope when you start accusing a peer of "bias". Could you please not drag the conversation down the road of ascribing personal motivations for my position in the discussion? I'm sure there are some types of articles you could be accused of being biased towards working on, but we aren't trying to make this personal, are we? We don't remove valid things just because one user likes them more than the rest, do we? :You've stated this page is about listing the crew, which is why I've suggested maintaining such a list and then taking the other idea and separating it so it no longer is held by the stricture of having to be about the listing of the people. :A chart of uniform insignia would be, by definition, a different list, so this wouldn't be a duplication of the crew list, if two were maintained. It would be a chart of the crew's uniform insignia showing their ranks and divisions. I've seen such things in non-Trek resources, such as orders of battle that show a hierarchy between commanders and troops. Since I've seen such things presented in an encyclopedic manner before, it seems to me to be a natural addition to our site's encyclopedic nature. :As to stating that the two lists would not be well-maintained, that ascribes a lack of faith in the capability of the users who have already stated their intentions on this page to maintain the lists. I'm a little concerned about that being an argument, as it could seem somewhat unfriendly to people on the user-level who want to work on these things and are only being blocked right now by your decree. :We add minute details to many pages that interest users with specific interests, such as fans of rank insignia or ships or comics or what-have-you, without fear of alienating casual users. This could be another avenue of expanding information presentation on this site, as long as it isn't blocked. -- Captain MKB 01:22, July 3, 2010 (UTC) I've changed my mind after trying to work with the table format for this article. I think a list format is the best way to go; when properly organized, it's very clear, and allows multiple assignments and uncertain information to be recorded more effectively. Perhaps we could work on the articles describing the various ranks to make them more informative and visually-oriented? --Columbia clipper 15:31, July 3, 2010 (UTC) :Sorry Mike, wasn't mean to imply any sort of ill motivation on your part, just asking you to think carefully about how you're approaching this discussion, to take a step back from your passion for insignia to consider just how it is used here. :When I talk about these pages being ill maintained I mean it not as a slight to any editors, it's just that these list sort of pages are in general poorly maintained already, most of them are not cited at all, and for major ships like the Enterprises despite anyone's best intentions it's such an epic job I'm not sure we'll ever finish them completely; there are so many throw away characters in so many novels and comics. So considering the existing state of these lists pages it seems ill advised to make two listing the same thing in a slightly different way. :Anywho, Columbia seems to have decided to swing the vote, so could we possibly return this page to the list format. And if you truly believe a separate listing to explore ranks insignia by ship would be a valuable addition Mike maybe you could work on a test page to develop something that achieves that, and maybe does so in a way that makes a little less repetitive? --8of5 01:43, July 4, 2010 (UTC) ::Scroll way up on the page and you'll see I supported bringing this back to a 'straight' list from early on in favor of taking the insignia elsewhere. ::As to keeping the insignia browser, I agree with a lot of what you've finally concluded -- i would like to do an insignia browser test page, as probably would the anon who's helped to almost complete this list here and whose work we're discussing removing. ::And as to the monstrosity of the task, that's why I started messing around with this on the Enterprise-''1701A'' -- a ship that had only seen two full movies, a few dozen comics and probably less than a few dozen novels. As compared with the 1701 and the 1701D it has a lot less known crew, and has the distinction of only having one consistent uniform revision, as opposed to the latter two that had two or three revisions each. -- Captain MKB 01:52, July 4, 2010 (UTC) Inaccuracies I'd caution contributors from making assumptions purely for the sake of the article. Characters who had no division specified shouldn't be moved into a section based on guesswork. One example is Codobach, who wore gold which could mean either helm or engineering but the article lists him as an engineer, but there's an equal chance he was a flight officer and not an engineer at all, isn't there? -- Captain MKB 00:16, July 5, 2010 (UTC) :I think that was a mistake that resulted from moving between the two lists. Codobach was listed as either flight control or engineer there; I think that was missed when the long list was reorganized here. I don't notice any other changes of that nature, and the characters I know seem to have been correctly identified. --Columbia clipper 00:25, July 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Just checking -- everyone working on the article now seems to be pretty well handling it, i just wanted to make sure there wasn't something else going on. -- Captain MKB 00:30, July 5, 2010 (UTC) Page structure I thought this was already the case until I just checked, it turns out on the Deep Space 9 personnel page is structured like this currently, but here's my thought, might it be at all useful to sue the three main divisions as a starting point for arranging the page, with the increasingly more detailed roles as sub-divions. So taking most of the current headings, something like: *Command personnel **Flight control personnel *Operations personnel **Engineering personnel **Communications personnel **Security personnel **Services personnel **Other operations personnel *Science personnel **Medical personnel *Other personnel --8of5 17:39, July 5, 2010 (UTC) :I think that some confusion is inherent in doing so, as movie-era uniforms don't follow this structure of three divisions -- helm and engineering share a uniform patch color, as do technical sciences and tactical and services. -- Captain MKB 17:59, July 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Indeed, both pages are divided according to the Starfleet divisions in use in their time. For Deep Space Nine, that means three divisions (Command, Science, Operations), but for the Enterprise-A, it means seven (Command, Engineering, Science, Medical, Security, (Military), Special Services). (A Star Trek: The Magazine issue is the source for the preceding names.) --Columbia clipper 18:05, July 5, 2010 (UTC) Wow, movie era in complicated! The Enteprise (TOS D & E) and Voyager personnel pages however would presumably fit the three division system, and they are current arranged in a more complex way like this page? --8of5 18:24, July 5, 2010 (UTC) :TOS might not - three different systems overlap its service - but I would think that everything from 2355 onward would. --Columbia clipper 18:27, July 5, 2010 (UTC) ::When I worked on the Voyager page, I set it up by departments because of all the aforementioned problems reconciling some parts of the division system in all eras. I think it makes more sense to break it down to the very basics of departmental specialty. -- Captain MKB 18:35, July 5, 2010 (UTC) :::I prefer the "snowflake" approach used here. It's only difficult to apply to a few ships (essentially the NCC-1701, if I remember correctly), and it's easier (for me, at least) to find the right division quickly. The other setup feels disorganized. --Columbia clipper 19:04, July 5, 2010 (UTC) Speaking has someone who does not have an intimate knowledge of the ranks and roles I think the "snowflake approach", as Columbia puts it, also makes finding things on these lists a bit easier for a novice. If I know enough to associate each colour with each department I can at least have a starting point trying to find someone in particular by quickly narrowing down my search to one of three broad areas. --8of5 01:29, July 6, 2010 (UTC)